NTSC or PAL? - Blu-ray Forum

turbine · 09-27-2017, 11:31 AM

Hi there,

we come across this question regularly and I thought we might just ask for some comments here...

Quick question: Why is 50Hz content an issue in North America? Is 50Hz really an issue in North America?

In short: For many decades Europe was PAL (ignore the French with SECAM

; also same resolution etc.), USA and JAPAN were NTSC. So VHS tapes were a nightmare to deal with, speaking of imports.

Things got better with DVD, but not to the fullest extent. Old DVD players sold in the states might play PAL DVDs, but it's not a requirement. Newer DVD players do, Blu-ray players just play everything (23.98 up to 59.97 Hz) as long as the disc itself is codefree. The only issue might be the display, although everything made after 2010 should be fine, too.

Is there any reason why a film enthusiast would prefer an NTSC over a PAL disc? Just by looking at the specs... the only pro for the NTSC disc is that it runs at (almost) the exact speed of the theatrical source. Speaking of resolution: NTSC has 640 * 480 = 307200 pixels. Let's say 300k pixels. PAL has 768 x 576 = 442368 pixels. Let's say 440k pixels. That means, NTSC has about 1/3rd less pixel information - resolution - than PAL. Yes, it's got a higher framerate, but that would only help for sports, not for a feature film.

The PAL speedup of the film and the corresponding pitch shift of the audio can be compensated for in mastering. So that should not me regarded an issue here. Also, PAL would run more smoothly without stutter, as there's no 3:2 pulldown involved (to convert from 24fps to 59.97).

Conclusion: PAL shouldn't be an issue in North America these days. Or is it?

PS: For the record... I am ware that it's wrong to use the terms NTSC and PAL for digital media, as what we're looking at is resolution * framerate and the terms above refer to the color coding scheme via analogue wires. I just felt that using 525/59.97 or 625/50 might complicate things.

09-27-2017, 11:31 AM	#1
turbine Active Member Member since:Jun 2016	NTSC or PAL? Hi there, we come across this question regularly and I thought we might just ask for some comments here... Quick question: Why is 50Hz content an issue in North America? Is 50Hz really an issue in North America? In short: For many decades Europe was PAL (ignore the French with SECAM ; also same resolution etc.), USA and JAPAN were NTSC. So VHS tapes were a nightmare to deal with, speaking of imports. Things got better with DVD, but not to the fullest extent. Old DVD players sold in the states might play PAL DVDs, but it's not a requirement. Newer DVD players do, Blu-ray players just play everything (23.98 up to 59.97 Hz) as long as the disc itself is codefree. The only issue might be the display, although everything made after 2010 should be fine, too. Is there any reason why a film enthusiast would prefer an NTSC over a PAL disc? Just by looking at the specs... the only pro for the NTSC disc is that it runs at (almost) the exact speed of the theatrical source. Speaking of resolution: NTSC has 640 * 480 = 307200 pixels. Let's say 300k pixels. PAL has 768 x 576 = 442368 pixels. Let's say 440k pixels. That means, NTSC has about 1/3rd less pixel information - resolution - than PAL. Yes, it's got a higher framerate, but that would only help for sports, not for a feature film. The PAL speedup of the film and the corresponding pitch shift of the audio can be compensated for in mastering. So that should not me regarded an issue here. Also, PAL would run more smoothly without stutter, as there's no 3:2 pulldown involved (to convert from 24fps to 59.97). Conclusion: PAL shouldn't be an issue in North America these days. Or is it? PS: For the record... I am ware that it's wrong to use the terms NTSC and PAL for digital media, as what we're looking at is resolution * framerate and the terms above refer to the color coding scheme via analogue wires. I just felt that using 525/59.97 or 625/50 might complicate things.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals